.
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
(OJJDP)
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT CENTERS:
A Discussion of the concept's efficacy
November 1995
Shay Bilchik, Administrator
Community Assessment Centers:
A discussion of the concept's efficacy
Introduction
The violent crime rate among juveniles has increased sharply over the past few years. According
to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention's (OJJDP) newly released report,
Juvenile Offenders and Victims: A National Report, by the year 2010, the juvenile population 10
to 17 years old is projected to increase more than 20 percent. This most basic statistic has
significant implications for future levels of juvenile crime because the children of baby boomers
are entering their high crime years. While no exact measure exists of the true volume of juvenile
crime, statistics on juvenile arrests reported annually by the FBI have been used to monitor
juvenile involvement in crime. OJJDP's report estimates that if juvenile arrest rates for violent
crime index offenses (murder, robbery, rape and aggravated assault) were to remain fixed at their
1992 levels, juvenile population growth would produce a 22 percent increase in juvenile arrests
for violent crimes. However, should violent crime arrest rates for juveniles increase in the future
as they did between 1983 and 1992, the number of juveniles arrested would double by the year
2010 to more than 260,000 arrests. Unfortunately, the Nation's already strained juvenile justice
system does not have adequate resources to effectively identify and treat youth at high risk of
becoming serious, violent, and chronic offenders nor the resources to intervene effectively when
they reach this point. To improve the juvenile justice system's response to this trend and to
minimize the impact of limited resources, some jurisdictions are employing the use of
community assessment centers to intervene with at-risk and delinquent youth. This paper
discusses the potential benefits of community assessment centers, examines how OJJDP
currently addresses issues of importance in intervening with at-risk and delinquent youth, and
discusses how OJJDP may address the concept of community assessment centers in fiscal year
1996, to ensure positive outcomes for youth.
Problem Statement
A variety of problem behaviors contribute to antisocial and delinquent behavior among youth. In
addition to serious delinquency, there are many other barriers to prosocial youth development at
both the individual and community levels. Factors such as mental illnesses, substance abuse,
truancy, school dropout, poverty, learning disorders, institutional racism or bias, child abuse and
neglect, unemployment, and youth victimization all negatively impact the development of our
Nation's youth.
Mental illness is frequently suggested as a contributing factor in juvenile crime. "While exact
prevalence rates are not known, experts in mental health and juvenile justice estimate that the
rate of mental disorder among youth in the juvenile justice system is substantially higher than
among youth in the general population. Additionally, although information on the specific types
of conduct disorder are typically lacking, it seems safe to assume that at least one-fifth, and
perhaps as much as 60 percent, of the youth in the juvenile justice system can be diagnosed as
having a conduct disorder (The National Coalition for the Mentally Ill in the Criminal Justice
System, 1992). A recent assessment conducted in the State of Virginia revealed that more than
75 percent of all youth in the State's 17 secure detention facilities exhibited at least one
diagnosable mental disorder. Of that number, 8 to 10 percent had mental health needs described
in the study as "serious" and 39 percent were assessed as having needs in the moderate range
(Virginia Policy Design Team, 1994).
Teen suicide is another indication that more awareness of and proactive community involvement
is needed in the lives of at-risk youth. In 1991, 1,899 youth ages 15 to 19 committed suicide, a
rate of 11 per 100,000 youth in this age group. Between 1979 and 1991, the rate of suicide
among youth ages 15 to 19 increased 31 percent (Allen-Hagen, et al., 1994).
Child maltreatment and family violence are significant risk factors for serious delinquency.
Sixty-nine percent of youth maltreated as children report involvement in violence as compared to
56 percent of those not maltreated. A history of maltreatment increases the chances of youth
violence by 24 percent. Additionally, 70 percent of adolescents who grow up in families where
parents fight with one another self-report violent delinquency as compared to 49 percent of
adolescents who grow up in families without conflict. Lastly, research has demonstrated that
exposure to multiple forms of family violence doubles the risk of self-reported youth violence
(Thornberry, 1994).
Truancy is another indicator of future problems for youth. Research has concluded that truant
students are significantly more likely to drop out of school than regular attenders. A 1989 study
by Bempechat and Ginsburg found that dropouts had exhibited notably higher rates of
absenteeism and truancy than nondropouts. In addition, 75 percent of students who were truant
in both elementary and high schools did not graduate from high school; for nontruants, the
dropout rate was a mere 1 percent. The majority of habitual truants make the transition to
dropping out. According to the National School Safety Center (NSSC) Resource Paper
Increasing Student Attendance (1994), a significant 1992 study by the National Center on
Educational Statistics found that:
- in 1992, approximately 383,000 students (4.4 percent of all high school students) 15 to
24 years old dropped out of grades 10 through 12 in 1992;
- in 1992, 3.4 million people (11 percent) 16 to 24 years old were high school dropouts;
and
- in 1992, the dropout rate was 11.6 percent for students who were eighth graders in 1988
and who had left high school by the spring of 1992 without finishing.
Compounding the issue of truancy, a strong correlation has been found among youth between
high unexcused absences and delinquent activity.
Societal or systemic (institutional) factors may also create negative influences in youth
development. As noted in the 1994 Interdepartmental Working Group on Violence report,
Violence: Report to the President and Domestic Policy Council, "persons of color, particularly
African-American and Latino-American males, are proportionately overrepresented both in the
juvenile and criminal justice systems at all levels. Research shows that disproportionate minority
confinement results from a number of discrete decisions made throughout the system, from the
point of arrest through intake and sentencing." In addition, female offenders may also be treated
disparately.
Community assessment centers show promise in helping to curb these types of individual and
systemic barriers or problems. For example, accurate and comprehensive automated
recordkeeping will enable jurisdictions to more closely track the progress of youth through the
juvenile justice system and quickly intervene when statistics related to gender/race/ethnicity
indicate disparities in processing and in service provision. Given this opportunity, and because
OJJDP's mission includes the improvement of the juvenile justice system, OJJDP is exploring
ways to assist jurisdictions who are considering developing or implementing the community
assessment center concept.
Background
In working toward solutions to these problems, OJJDP strives to understand delinquency and its
causes and to then identify appropriate responses. Previous OJJDP-supported research, for
example, indicates that many variables correlate with delinquency and that many risk factors tend
to increase the risk of delinquent behavior. Among these factors are birth trauma, child abuse
and neglect, ineffective parental discipline, family disruptions, conduct disorder and
hyperactivity, school failure, learning disabilities, negative peer influences, limited employment
opportunities, inadequate housing, and residence in high-crime neighborhoods.
Research results reported in OJJDP publications such as Urban Delinquency and Substance
Abuse: Initial Findings (1994) and others suggest that efforts to reduce delinquent behavior
should start early, be comprehensive and long term, and attempt to interrupt development
pathways before serious, chronic delinquency emerges.
In OJJDP's Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders
(1993), several principles are established to guide communities' efforts in the battle to prevent
delinquent conduct and reduce juvenile involvement in serious, violent, and chronic delinquency:
Strengthen the family in its primary responsibility to instill moral values
and provide guidance and support to children.
Support core social institutions such as schools, religious institutions
and community organizations in their efforts to develop capable, mature,
and responsible youth. A nurturing community environment requires that
core social institutions be actively involved in the lives of youth.
Community organizations include public and private youth-serving
agencies, neighborhood groups, and business and commercial
organizations providing youth with employment, training, and other
meaningful economic opportunities.
Promote delinquency prevention as the most cost-effective approach to
dealing with juvenile delinquency. When children engage in "acting out"
behavior such as status offenses, the family and community in concert
with child welfare agencies must respond with appropriate treatment and
support services. Communities must take the lead in designing and
building comprehensive prevention approaches that address known risk
factors and target youth at risk of delinquency.
Intervene immediately and effectively when delinquent behavior
occurs to successfully prevent delinquent offenders from becoming
chronic offenders or progressively committing more serious and violent
crimes. Initial intervention efforts, under an umbrella of system
components (police, intake, and probation), should be centered in the
family and other core institutions. Practitioners should ensure that an
appropriate response occurs and act quickly and firmly if the need for
formal system adjudication and sanctions is demonstrated.
Identify and control the small group of serious, violent and chronic
juvenile offenders who have committed felony offenses or who have
failed to respond to intervention and nonsecure community-based
treatment and rehabilitation services offered.
Under OJJDP's Comprehensive Strategy, it is the family and community, supported by core
public and private institutions, that have primary responsibility for meeting the needs of our
Nation's children. Socially harmful conduct, acting-out behavior, and delinquency may be signs
of a family unable to meet this responsibility. It is at these times that the community must
support and assist the family in the socialization process, particularly for youth at the greatest risk
of delinquency.
The Comprehensive Strategy incorporates two principle components: (1) preventing youth from
becoming delinquent by focusing prevention programs on at-risk youth; and (2) improving the
juvenile justice system response to delinquent offenders through a system of graduated sanctions
and a continuum of treatment alternatives that include immediate intervention, intermediate
sanctions, and community-based secure and nonsecure corrections sanctions. Restitution and
community service should be included when appropriate.
The Comprehensive Strategy focuses on two target populations. The initial target population for
prevention programs is juveniles at risk of involvement in delinquent activity. This group
includes youth who exhibit known risk factors for future delinquency and youth who have had
contact with the juvenile justice system as nonoffenders (neglected, abused, and dependent
youth), status offenders (runaways, truants, alcohol offenders, and incorrigibles), or minor
delinquent offenders. The next population is youth who have committed delinquent acts,
including offenders who evidence a high likelihood of becoming or who already are serious,
violent, or chronic offenders.
For any prevention effort to be successful, it must be understood that juvenile justice agencies
and programs are part of a larger network of care that involves many local agencies and programs
that work with at-risk youth and their families. It is important that juvenile delinquency
prevention and intervention programs be integrated with local police, social service, child
welfare, school, and family preservation programs and that these programs reflect communities'
assessments of their most pressing problems and program priorities.
Comprehensive approaches to delinquency prevention and intervention requires collaboration
between the juvenile justice system and other service provision systems, including mental health,
health, child welfare, and education. Mechanisms that effectively link these service providers at
the program level need to be an important component of every community's comprehensive plan.
Although OJJDP's Comprehensive Strategy is an effective approach to preventing and
controlling serious, violent, and chronic juvenile delinquency, the juvenile justice system itself
must be prepared systemically to implement its broad principles to successfully achieve an
effective continuum of care.
Some might argue that the fundamental dilemma of juvenile justice is balancing the requirements
of distributive justice to produce fair' outcomes with the need to treat children in the most
individual and flexible ways, despite chronically inadequate resources (Krisberg and Austin,
1993).
Other related systemic dilemmas create further barriers to a coordinated and effective continuum
of service delivery. Krisberg and Austin argue that the current organization of adolescent social
and health services is characterized by rigidly drawn agency turfs and budgetary categories, a
situation that contributes to fragmented and often wasteful deployment of scarce public
resources. It is not uncommon for multiple caseworkers to be assigned to the same youth and
family. From the vantage point of each professional, the youth is delinquent, abused, in need of
special educational services, or a welfare recipient. Other service providers may be working with
other family members or siblings. In the typical scenario, no one service provider possesses an
overall view of the adolescent's needs. As a result, a comprehensive and integrated treatment
plan is rarely developed.
Krisberg and Austin further state that the categorical nature of government funding and the lack
of interagency collaboration lead to difficult turf battles to include or exclude certain clients.
Older adolescents, particularly those with histories of mental illness or aggressive behavior, are
the most likely to be omitted by agency service criteria. These youth generally end up in juvenile
correctional institutions because public corrections agencies cannot refuse to take custody of
adolescents who are lawfully committed to their care. Thus, juvenile corrections agencies must
manage a wide variety of youngsters that other agencies refuse to serve. As fiscal pressures
mount, the juvenile corrections system becomes, by default, an inappropriate social service net.
According to these authors, this fragmented structure inhibits the accountability of government
agencies to protect young people and to promote public safety. Further, the availability of
treatment resources is highly dependent on political and media whims. A more cost-effective
approach would entail coordinated and integrated planning of juvenile justice and related human
services (Krisberg & Austin, 1993).
Traditionally, local juvenile justice and related services including family preservation, mental
health, and substance abuse prevention and treatment are delivered on a "slot driven" basis --
when a treatment space is available. Rather than providing a system of coordinated care, service
providers often operate independently of one another and rarely become aware of their clients'
and their clients' families involvement in other services. However, many youth and their
families are besieged by multiple problems and needs such as drug treatment, family counseling,
vocational training and housing assistance. For these families, accessing appropriate services
requires navigating a maze of case workers, intake workers, and counselors and completing many
pages of applications and forms. Exacerbating this difficult process is the fact that the care
received by these families is likely to be redundant and incomplete because no single provider
can determine and meet all of those families' needs. It is due, in large part to this lack of
coordination that multiple-problem youth are not served properly and find themselves engaging
in high-risk delinquency behavior and facing juvenile court processing. Additionally, because
the system itself lacks coordination, the imposition of accountability for youths committing
serious acts does not always occur and is therefore not certain.
OJJDP's Comprehensive Strategy addresses these systemic issues by asserting that the traditional
role of the juvenile and family court is to treat and rehabilitate the dependent or wayward minor,
using an individualized approach tailored to the needs of the child and family. The goals of the
approach should be: (1) responding to the needs of troubled youth and their families; (2)
providing due process while recognizing the rights of the victim; (3) rehabilitating the juvenile
offender; and (4) protecting both the juvenile and the public. While juvenile and family courts
have been earnest in responding to the bulk of problems faced by at-risk youth, new ways of
organizing and focusing the resources of the juvenile justice system are required to effectively
address serious, violent, and chronic juvenile crime.
Finally, the Comprehensive Strategy suggests that juvenile corrections provide youth with
treatment services in the least restrictive setting possible, when appropriate, to maximize
rehabilitation and to minimize the chances of reoffending. Juvenile courts and corrections will
benefit from a system that makes available to youth a continuum of services responsive to each
juvenile's needs. To create this continuum, however, both risk and needs assessments must be
effectively and efficiently performed. Unfortunately, traditional approaches to decisionmaking in
juvenile justice have been highly discretionary, subjective, and intuitive. The information
selected to assess a particular case and how that information is evaluated varies among individual
decisionmakers not only according to their philosophy and experience, but also according to their
assumptions about what factors are most relevant. For example, one probation officer may
determine how closely an offender should be supervised on the basis of the seriousness of the
offense, a second officer might make the decision on the basis of a particular risk factor such as
substance abuse, and a third officer might determine the level of supervision on the basis of the
client's need for services. Such variations in assessment and classification criteria result in
inconsistency among decisionmakers and unequal treatment for similarly situated offenders
(Howell, 1995). Additionally, many underlying psycho-social problems faced by youth, such as
learning disabilities and family dysfunction, are never detected nor adequately identified and
therefore not adequately addressed.
A juvenile justice system equipped with the resources and knowledge to match juveniles with
appropriate treatment programs while holding them accountable can have a positive and lasting
impact on the reduction of delinquency. Identifying and providing community-based alternatives
to confinement is often preferable and cost-effective. Developing effective case management and
management information systems (MIS) will be integral to this effort.
Inherent in these changes and in meeting the goals stated above are the concepts of
"coordination" and "service integration." Soler (1992) has noted that most services for children
and families in the United States are categorical, fragmented, and uncoordinated. Children
labeled as "delinquent" are tracked toward correctional placements aimed at keeping them within
a designated setting and modifying their behavior. Little effort is devoted to resolving underlying
family problems. Children labeled "abused," "neglected," or "dependent" are removed from
their homes and quickly placed in foster care, but they rarely receive the appropriate level of
preventive family support or mental health services. Children with mental health needs are
placed in secure psychiatric settings and are often heavily medicated, with little opportunity for
treatment in community-based, family-oriented programs.
Soler also notes that this fragmented human services system does not serve anyone very
effectively: not youth, not families, and not communities. The system is expensive, it often fails
to solve problems, and youth are referred from one agency to another with little follow up. In
some cases, this fragmented system results in negative outcomes, making the patient sicker rather
than promoting a cure. One solution to this dilemma is to create a coordinated, community-based
system that offers a continuum of care, including prevention, early intervention, and treatment
services. Its goal would be to serve youth's needs, not the requirements of funding streams or
various bureaucracies. Collaborative efforts are needed among agencies responsible for
assessing the needs of at-risk youth and providing them with a wide range of services to
maximize efforts.
Without a continuum of care, the piecemeal, fragmented systems now in place will continue to
offer fragmented services for a variety of problems, never solving any of them. Children in
trouble who need out-of-home services are currently serviced in four separate systems: the
juvenile justice system, the alcohol and other drug treatment system, the mental health system,
and the social welfare system. Without coordination among these systems, the same youth will
loop in and out of all of them (Soler, 1992).
Concept
During fiscal year 1996, OJJDP will further explore options to help service providers achieve the
beneficial and necessary principles discussed above, all of which are consistent with OJJDP's
Comprehensive Strategy. Through a series of staff retreats and contacts with juvenile justice
practitioners in the field, the use of assessment centers in the juvenile justice system was
identified as a promising approach. In July 1995, OJJDP convened an initial focus group
comprised of various individuals from the juvenile justice field. The purpose of this discussion
was to explore the benefits and possible disadvantages of community assessment centers.
Although the framework for the focus group was the experience of assessment centers developed
recently throughout Florida, no single model was used as a basis for discussion. A fruitful
discussion offered consensus around several key issues. Essentially, the focus group considered
assessment centers to be a viable option, although its participants stressed caution on such issues
as labeling, breach of confidentiality, unnecessarily "widening the net," lack of interagency
coordination, and sensitivity toward due process.
On the basis of the meeting's discussions and on years of research reflected in OJJDP's
Comprehensive Strategy, we can state with certainty that any option to be considered must, at a
minimum, possess the following characteristics:
Single Point of Entry. Currently, most systems of treatment have multiple and decentralized
points of entry. This approach leads to fragmentation of services and intensifies the dilemmas
inherent in implementing a comprehensive case management system. Too often, youth enter the
same system repeatedly, but through different "doors". In this situation, it may take months, if at
all, for service providers to realize that one youth is receiving similar or the same services from
two or more providers. In some cases, however, it may not be feasible for a system's single point
of entry to be an actual "physical" point of entry. Rather, a "virtual" option could be employed in
which information gathered at one location, could be shared (presumably on a need to know and
right to know basis) with othr service providers, via a systemwide multiagency management
information system.
Immediate and Comprehensive Assessments. To effectively address the risks and needs of
at-risk youth and youth entering the juvenile justice system as either dependent or delinquent,
comprehensive community-based assessments (i.e., performed in a nonsecure setting), where
appropriate, are essential. Paramount to this stage are assurances that no assessment process
violates the JJDP Act core requirements. These requirements, as identified in Sections 223(a),
(12)(A), (13), (14) and (23) of the JJDP Act of 1974 (P.L. 93 415) 42 U.S.C. 5601 et seq., as
amended, pertain to: the deinstitutionalization of status offenders; separation of juveniles from
adults while securely confined; removal of juveniles from adult jails and lockups; and to
reducing the disproportionate confinement of minority youth.
As outlined in OJJDP's Comprehensive Strategy and its soon to be released National Juvenile
Justice Action Plan (Draft 1995), the concept of risk assessment is central to an effective juvenile
justice system. A study of 14 States found that, on average, 31 percent of incarcerated juveniles
could be safely placed in less secure settings. This finding could have a major impact on how
States approach the problems of facility overcrowding and service delivery. Considering that the
annual cost of incarcerating a youth falls between $35,000 and $60,000, reducing unnecessary
placements could produce considerable savings. Such savings could be applied to developing
immediate or intermediate sanctions, improving prevention and intervention programming, and
intervening earlier in a juvenile's involvement in the juvenile justice system.
Communities developing a graduated sanctions system need tools to determine which and how
many youth should be placed at each security level in the continuum of care. In an effective
juvenile justice system, risk-focused classifications are used to make placements for juvenile
offenders on the basis of clearly designed, objective criteria. These criteria focus on (1) the
seriousness of the delinquent act; (2) the potential for reoffending based on the presence of risk
factors; and (3) the risk to public safety. In addition to these goals, objective risk classification
can prove useful for reducing bias in placement decisionmaking, particularly in light of the
disproportionate incarceration rates among minority populations.
In addition, the Action Plan states that needs assessments are also critical to a properly
functioning juvenile justice system. An effective needs assessment ensures the selection of the
most appropriate program for youth within the determined security level. A system of multilevel,
community-based assessments (from basic screening to indepth inventories) administered at
appropriate levels by a multidisciplinary team or a specially trained individual with access to the
youth's treatment and system involvement history would assist greatly in decisionmaking about
appropriate treatment. The needs assessment would identify chronic or multiple needs that
warrant placement in specialized programs (for example, sex offender or violent offender
program, or a rigorous wilderness program). Needs assessments can also be used after program
acceptance in case planning to identify appropriate services. An accurate needs assessment in
combination with effective, integrated services is the best way to ensure positive outcomes for at-risk youth.
Whereas a specially trained individual may be acceptable in some cases, the assessment team
approach is an innovative method for integrating the risk and needs classification requirements of
the juvenile justice system, the goals of treatment, and the best use of scarce system resources.
As the Action Plan further states, all members of an assessment team should be knowledgeable
about differences that can stem from diversity of race, culture, and class.
These same activities or processes inherent in a single-point-of-entry system, which utilizes
immediate and comprehensive assessments of delinquent youth, are applicable to dependent
youth and status offenders. By coordinating front-end services, the juvenile justice system can
more effectively intervene to prevent youth from becoming delinquent.
Management Information System (MIS). To effectively monitor a youth's progress through
multiple treatment programs, possibly in different systems, an infrastructure that has the potential
to support integrated case management should be in place. Additionally, treatment history and
prior contact information should be integrated into one system so that professionals performing
assessments and designing a treatment plan can be quickly made aware of previous intervention
attempts, thereby helping them identify problem areas and needs. Ideally, the information system
should have the capability of: (1) receiving and cataloging case manager-collected progress
updates from community service providers; and (2) compiling data for reporting on the problems
of youth in the community (needs), the levels of success in placing youth in needed services
(service gaps), and the success of those treatment programs (preliminary outcomes). This type of
reporting has the potential to help communities identify gaps and redundancies in services and
promotes accountability within the system.
In addition to case-specific, individual-level data, the MIS can be a useful tool for documenting
existing services within a community, assuming that services do, in fact, exist. By acting as a
"clearinghouse" of service providers within the community, the assessment center provides a
means of further coordinating service delivery and makes the most use of limited resources.
Integrated Case Management. Effective case management is crucial to success in implementing
and maintaining any treatment continuum model. Additionally, effective integrated case
management is crucial to coordinating, and monitoring multiple services that a youth may be
receiving, and it is an effective way of providing feedback to the assessment process. In essence,
the case manager, armed with comprehensive information from an appropriate MIS, is the critical
link between comprehensive assessments and effective and integrated service delivery. In an
effective case management system, case managers are responsible for case assessment and
planning, referral and monitoring of service delivery, and reassessment. The case manager is
also responsible for developing individualized treatment plans based on the results of the
assessment(s). The process may be aided by input from an MIS as well as clinical professionals,
if necessary. The treatment plan should identify intervention priorities and include both short-term and long-term goals. Treatment plans must be flexible and responsive and should be
reassessed at regularly determined intervals (for example, every 2 to 3 months). Reassessment
should be based on recent behavior, progress in meeting objectives, and newly identified needs.
It should take into account changes in the youth's environment and in available resources. The
case manager plays a central and critical role in this process.
Providing Input to the Policymaking Process. By designing and creating information systems
that collect and store multidisciplinary data regarding each youth, and by continuously updating
the youth's file with treatment progress data (referral followup), it is possible to measure the
effectiveness of particular prevention and intervention strategies as well as the effectiveness of
individual service providers and potential treatment modalities. By measuring these results,
ineffective strategies can be abandoned and poor service providers can be monitored and
appropriate followup action taken.
Additional input into the policymaking process can be gleaned from both process and outcome
evaluations of community assessment centers. In addition to analyzing individual outcomes, we
must also be concerned with providing youth with immediate and comprehensive community-based assessments and addressing needs through a system of integrated services provided in the
least restrictive setting available. Although these issues are essentials for an effective and
equitable juvenile justice system, many other issues were discussed during the focus group
meeting held by OJJDP.
Current Jurisdictional Activity
The focus group discussion was primarily centered around recent developments in Florida
regarding the concept of Assessment Centers, also referred to as Juvenile Assessment Centers
(JAC), and Juvenile Intervention Facilities (JIF). Various versions of the assessment center
concept are in operation or in development throughout Florida. Other States may be considering
or adopting similar concepts. The Kansas Supreme Court has issued an administrative order
(#97) regarding to the establishment of a juvenile intake and assessment system, which has led
policymakers in Kansas to consider a single assessment center with a statewide "service area" as
opposed to a regional approach such as the one followed in Florida. Officials in Colorado and
Nebraska are also exploring this approach.
In general, the Florida assessment center concept employs a centralized intake system for youth
who have had negative contact with law enforcement, and in some instances for truant youth, as
is the case in Broward County's (Ft. Lauderdale) Juvenile Intervention Facility and Hillsborough
County's (Tampa) Juvenile Assessment Center. In Florida, each district and, in some cases, each
county has its own assessment center. In some counties, more than one assessment center is
being considered, and in other situations, such as rural counties, one assessment center may serve
multiple counties. It appears at this stage, however, that JACs in operation in Florida currently
accept primarily or in some cases only youth referred by law enforcement or by court order.
Youth are brought into JAC or JIF through a secure "sally port" and are fingerprinted and
photographed. Once identification has taken place, they are given an initial assessment of needs
and problems, and any history of contact with law enforcement, juvenile justice, and social
services is collected. Some assessment centers in Florida, such as Hillsborough County's
(Tampa) JAC, have begun using the Problem Oriented Screening Instrument for Teenagers
(POSIT), which is designed to identify problems in any functional area requiring further
assessments and/or treatment. Additionally, academic information and school discipline
information is gathered when available.
From this information, a determination is made regarding the necessity of an indepth assessment.
Once all on-site assessments are completed, a detention eligibility decision is made. From this
point, youth are assigned case managers to monitor their progress through the system, including
followup assessment and disposition. This aspect of the assessment center operation requires
close scrutiny. OJJDP emphasizes the need for community-based assessments where applicable
and appropriate.
At least one pilot study to date (Dembo and Turner, 1994) has indicated that the assessment
center concept as implemented in Hillsborough County (Tampa), Florida, has the ability to
identify multiple-problem, high-risk youth at an early time. Specifically, the study involved 110
truant youth brought to the Tampa JAC in January 1993. The majority of these youth were males
who ranged in age from 9 to 18 years old, with an average age of 14. According to the study, 45
percent had a history of one or more arrests on a delinquency charge. An analysis of POSIT
results revealed that 96 percent of these youth indicated a potential problem in peer relations; 82
percent indicated a potential problem in "mental health status"; and 33 percent to 47 percent had
a potential problem involving substance abuse, physical health, family relations, and vocational
status.
In another study, POSIT results indicated that 82 percent of the youth included in the sample had
a potential mental health problem, and 51 percent had a potential substance use/abuse problem,
yet relatively few claimed to have ever received treatment for any of these problems. Further
analysis of results involving mental health and substance abuse problems in sociodemographic
subgroups, found that black youth were much less likely to have received treatment for each of
these problems than were white youth (Dembo et al, 1994b). This type of information may prove
useful in local monitoring of racial disparity at various points within the juvenile justice system.
Assessments of this kind can also help identify treatment or service "gaps" and underscore the
need for a complex yet informative and capable information system that can be accessed by
multiple agencies with varying levels of information access. In Hillsborough's JAC, for
example, the information system consists of three parts:
(1) preliminary screening data;
(2) indepth assessment data; and
(3) referral and referral outcome data.
Each processed youth is given a unique identification number and, for each entry, a unique
event/episode number. The information system is event- or episode-based, permitting analyses
by individual case or by event/episode. The preliminary screening collects the following
information:
Demographic characteristics (e.g., gender, age, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic
status);
Current charges;
Delinquency history;
Dependency history (e.g., physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect),
Special case designation (M-CAP, SHOCAP, gang associate case);
Florida DHRS service/program history;
Educational history (current grade, standardized test results, and special program
placement;
Alcohol and other drug use (self-reported prevalence, recency, lifetime frequency
and days of alcohol use in past year, and various other substances);
EMIT R urine test results for various illicit drugs;
Breathalyser test results for alcohol (completed as arrested youths enter JAC);
HIV risk behavior;
Substance abuse and mental health treatment history;
Recommendations for assessment and disposition; and
Recommendations for immediate placement.
The preliminary screening package is programmed in a specialized computer language so that
JAC intake staff can enter the data via on-line PC computer screens as part of a local area
network (LAN), supported by a large memory file server. The developed software program also
produces computer ready research data files of the preliminary screening data, client dossiers,
and various summary reports.
Hillsborough County's indepth assessment information as well as referral and referral outcome
data is also included in the MIS. For youth in need of intervention or treatment services, JAC
staff plan to track and record their interaction with the services (agencies) to which they and their
families are referred and the types of services in which youth were placed, as well as identify
limitations in services or the lack of services to address specific problems experienced by youth.
JAC staff plan to use this data to drive new services (Dembo and Brown, 1994).
Summary
Although it would appear that the community assessment center concept is wholly advantageous,
the OJJDP focus group outlined several areas of caution with respect to the development of any
model or prototype. Specifically:
Assessment centers, through a net widening effect, may lead to an overwhelming
burden on the juvenile justice system, especially if the assessment center is
considered by law enforcement to be a "quick drop-off point" or a less
stigmatizing way of bringing a youth into the juvenile justice system or treatment
realm.
Assessment instruments administered by nonclinicians or paraprofessionals may
be subject to misinterpretation or contamination.
Assessment center personnel must be sensitive to cultural diversity.
Individual rights and due process must be preserved.
The safety and security of juveniles and assessment center staff must be ensured,
perhaps by providing separate entrances for different categories of youth. This
precaution may also go a long way towards ensuring protection from inappropriate
labeling of youth.
The issue of record confidentiality cannot be ignored. An appropriate method of
defining "need to know/right to know" should be developed.
As a result of OJJDP's cursory review of the Florida assessment center models (as described
above) and of the focus group and its discussions, several other areas are recommended for
further exploration and discussion. Specifically:
The involvement of families in assessment process and treatment plan
development.
Transportation issues. In Florida, each assessment center typically is responsible
for handling youth from at least one county, and in some cases it is speculated that
the service area could include several rural counties. Transportation to and from
the assessment centers via law enforcement or the family is an issue worthy of
further analysis.
The advantages and disadvantages as well as the feasibility of providing not only
assessments but also services within the assessment center. This issue
underscores complications in areas such as the maximum time a juvenile can be
held in an assessment center.
Assessment centers, use of existing community resources.
Further exploration of assessment instruments and an analysis of their
effectiveness.
Exploration of confidentiality/record sharing issues in a preadjudicatory stage.
Exploration of determining which youth are appropriate and eligible for
assessment center intake. Limiting assessment center intake to accused delinquent
or status offenders may be more feasible; however, opening multiple doors to an
assessment center that accepts these youth as well as at-risk youth at-risk may be
more desirable.
Exploration of various MIS technologies to determine which hardware, software,
and MIS configurations would be most effective and informative for practitioners
and policymakers.
What is known for certain is that many components of this approach have been implemented in
various combinations and to varying degrees of success over the years. We must learn from our
past successes and failures to develop interventions that prevent at-risk youth from becoming
serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders.
If OJJDP is to explore the development of community assessment centers, it must also explore
the experience of other jurisdictions and examine carefully the legal and practical issues related
to implementation of single-point-of-entry community assessment centers. In addition,
exploration of this approach must be carried out in conjunction with the implementation of
comprehensive, collaborative approaches to the delivery of services to at-risk and delinquent
youth.
Fiscal Year 1996
Based on it's initial focus group meeting and subsequent internal discussions, OJJDP will
attempt to immediately identify existing community assessment centers and related projects.
Once a number of existing projects have been identified, OJJDP will survey and possibly visit
these projects to determine the extent to which they are implementing the activities and processes
of the community assessment center concept as discussed in this paper. While intending to
provide positive outcomes for youth, OJJDP will look closely at areas such as temporary holding,
levels of diversion versus detention (particularly in situations involving minority youth), proper
handling of status offenders, and the proper utilization of any MIS. OJJDP's intent is to ensure
system and outcome improvements and to foster these improvements without unnecessary
confinement, limited due process, or inequitable treatment. OJJDP hopes to identify jurisdictions
exceeding or attempting to exceed what is currently known of successful comprehensive
assessments and of monitored access to integrated treatment services.
From this initial research, which will be completed in the first quarter of calendar year 1996, a
review of "community assessment centers" will be completed and any potential models
identified. This finding will play a large role in determining how OJJDP will proceed with this
concept, especially regarding the type of program (i.e., demonstration, evaluation, or research) to
pursue. Any model identified for replication or developed through an OJJDP-supported research
and development process would have, at a minimum, the following goals:
To ensure positive outcomes for youth through the provision of
comprehensive, community-based assessments that drive the development
of an integrated treatment plan. Such an assessment should not require
unnecessary detention.
To promote and increase the effective and safe use of alternatives to
detention within a system of graduated sanctions for delinquent offenders.
To provide accurate and timely monitoring capabilities of issues such as
gender-specific programming and the overall processing of at-risk,
dependent, or delinquent minorities of all races, genders, and ethnicities to
ensure equal and fair treatment at all phases of the juvenile justice system.
To promote improved access to multidisciplinary data or records and
integration of assessment, case management, and community-based
services through use of an automated information system, while avoiding
breaches of confidentiality.
In the last half of fiscal year 1996, OJJDP will develop either a demonstration program or a
training and technical assistance and dissemination program to complement the initial research
findings. Sources
Allen-Hagen, B., Sickmund, M., and Snyder, H. Juveniles and Violence: Juvenile Offending and
Victimization. 1994. Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention, Fact Sheet #19. p. 3.
Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, National Juvenile Justice
Action Plan. (Draft). Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 1995.
Dembo, R., and Turner, G., A Study of Truants Processed at the Hillsborough County Juvenile
Assessment Center. The Journal of At-Risk Issues Vol. 1, Fall 1994. p. 38 42.
Dembo, R., Turner, G., et al. Screening High Risk Youths for Potential Problems: Field
Application in the Use of the Problem Oriented Screening Instrument for Teenagers (POSIT).
Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse. Vol. 3 (4): p. 69 93, 1994.
Dembo, R., and Brown, R., The Hillsborough County Juvenile Assessment Center. Journal of
Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse. Vol. 3 (2): p.25 43, 1994.
Howell, J.C., Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and
Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. May 1995.
p. 191.
Krisberg, B., and Austin, J.F., Reinventing Juvenile Justice. National Council on Crime and
Delinquency. 1993. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, p.181.
National Coalition for the Mentally Ill in the Criminal Justice System. Responding to the Mental
Health Needs of Youth in the Juvenile Justice System. 1992. Seattle, Washington. p. 21.
Snyder, H. N., and Sickmund, M., Juvenile Offenders and Victims: A National Report. 1995.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Deliquency Prevention. Washington, D.C.
Soler, M. "Interagency Services in Juvenile Justice Systems." In Justice and Public Policy:
Toward A National Agenda. 1992. New York, NY: Lexington Books. pp.134-50.
Thornberry, T.P.. Violent Families and Youth Violence. Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, Fact Sheet #21. 1994.
Virginia Policy Design Team. Mental Health Needs of Youth in Virginia's Juvenile Detention
Centers. 1994. (Note: Virginia was selected by the National Coalition for the Mentally Ill in the
Criminal Justice System as one of five States to participate in a State Policy Design Academy.
The Mission of the Academy was to design and implement a strategy of response to the mental
health needs of youth in the juvenile justice system.)